A comparison of simultaneously-obtained measures of listening effort: pupil dilation, verbal response time and self-rating

Visentin, Chiara; Valzolgher, Chiara; Pellegatti, Matteo; Potente, Paola; Pavani, Francesco; Prodi, Nicola

doi:10.1080/14992027.2021.1921290

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The VRT was found to be most sensitive to changes in SNR, which the authors equate with a change in listening effort. At the same time, however, no correlation with the results of pupillometry could be found, leading to the conclusion that different dimensions of listening effort were captured ( Visentin et al, 2021 ). Pals et al (2015) call the VRT measurement a “good candidate” for measuring listening effort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It should be noted that there is no agreement on whether VRT directly measures listening effort or whether it is only related to listening effort. Visentin et al (2021) measured speech recognition using a matrix test at different SNR values with normal-hearing participants. Subjective ratings of listening effort and VRT were measured; in addition, pupillometry was used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Pals et al (2015) the VRT is a good indicator for listening effort, but it is still unclear, whether it directly measures the listening effort itself or another dimension of listening effort. Both the presence of noise and poorer SNR ( Houben et al, 2013 ; Meister et al, 2018 ; Visentin et al, 2021 ) led to higher VRT values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another method to gauge listening effort is to measure the Verbal Response Time (VRT; Houben et al, 2013 ; Meister et al, 2018 ; Pals et al, 2015 ; Visentin et al., 2021 ). VRT describes the time delay between the end of the stimulus presentation and the beginning of the response of the participant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Speech Recognition and Listening Effort of Meaningful Sentences Using Synthetic Speech

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech-recognition tests are an important component of audiology. However, the development of such tests can be time consuming. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a Text-To-Speech (TTS) system can reduce the cost of development, and whether comparable results can be achieved in terms of speech recognition and listening effort. For this, the everyday sentences of the German Göttingen sentence test were synthesized for both a female and a male speaker using a TTS system. In a preliminary study, this system was rated as good, but worse than the natural reference. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the measurements took place online. Each set of speech material was presented at three fixed signal-to-noise ratios. The participants’ responses were recorded and analyzed offline. Compared to the natural speech, the adjusted psychometric functions for the synthetic speech, independent of the speaker, resulted in an improvement of the speech-recognition threshold (SRT) by approximately 1.2 dB. The slopes, which were independent of the speaker, were about 15 percentage points per dB. The time periods between the end of the stimulus presentation and the beginning of the verbal response (verbal response time) were comparable for all speakers, suggesting no difference in listening effort. The SRT values obtained in the online measurement for the natural speech were comparable to published data. In summary, the time and effort for the development of speech-recognition tests may be significantly reduced by using a TTS system. This finding provides the opportunity to develop new speech tests with a large amount of speech material.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Speech Recognition and Listening Effort of Meaningful Sentences Using Synthetic Speech

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,13,27,28 In general, VRT increases as the intelligibility of the signal decreases, 2,13,[29][30][31][32][33][34] can be used to differentiate between populations of varying auditory abilities, 13,31 shows sensitivities to signal degradation even when performance on speech recognition tasks remain constant, 35,36 and is correlated with subjective reports of listening effort. 34 Therefore, we propose VRT is a particularly strong candidate for a clinical measure of listening effort in comparison to the dualtask paradigm, which has been shown to be inconsistent in its ability to differentiate varying auditory abilities, 37 and pupillometry, as it does not require the purchase of expensive equipment not currently used in a typical audiology appointment (e.g., eye tracker). The VRT paradigm is also of interest because it has been successfully used with children 28,[30][31][32][33]38 and can be combined with already routinely performed speech-in-noise tests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–Retest Reliability and the Role of Task Instructions when Measuring Listening Effort Using a Verbal Response Time Paradigm

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listening amidst competing noise taxes one's limited cognitive resources, leading to increased listening effort. As such, there is interest in incorporating a reliable test of listening effort into the clinical test battery. One clinically promising method for measuring listening effort is verbal response time (VRT) because it can be obtained using already-established clinical tasks. In order for widespread implementation of the VRT paradigm, a better understanding of the psychometric properties is needed. The purpose of this work was to improve the understanding of the reliability and sensitivity of the VRT listening task. Using within-subject study designs, we completed a pilot study to evaluate the test–retest reliability (Study 1) and the effects of task instructions and listening condition (Study 2). Preliminary results show that the VRT paradigm enjoys good to excellent test–retest reliability and that neither task instructions nor listening condition meaningfully influence VRT once measurement error is accounted for. Future studies should account for measurement error when considering statistically significant versus meaningful effects of experimental parameters when using listening effort tasks.

show abstract

Auditory, Lexical, and Multitasking Demands Interactively Impact Listening Effort

Kuchinsky,

Razeghi,

Pandža

2023

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study examined the extent to which acoustic, linguistic, and cognitive task demands interactively impact listening effort. Method: Using a dual-task paradigm, on each trial, participants were instructed to perform either a single task or two tasks. In the primary word recognition task, participants repeated Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 words presented in speech-shaped noise at either an easier or a harder signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The words varied in how commonly they occur in the English language (lexical frequency). In the secondary visual task, participants were instructed to press a specific key as soon as a number appeared on screen (simpler task) or one of two keys to indicate whether the visualized number was even or odd (more complex task). Results: Manipulation checks revealed that key assumptions of the dual-task design were met. A significant three-way interaction was observed, such that the expected effect of SNR on effort was only observable for words with lower lexical frequency and only when multitasking demands were relatively simpler. Conclusions: This work reveals that variability across speech stimuli can influence the sensitivity of the dual-task paradigm for detecting changes in listening effort. In line with previous work, the results of this study also suggest that higher cognitive demands may limit the ability to detect expected effects of SNR on measures of effort. With implications for real-world listening, these findings highlight that even relatively minor changes in lexical and multitasking demands can alter the effort devoted to listening in noise.

show abstract

A comparison of simultaneously-obtained measures of listening effort: pupil dilation, verbal response time and self-rating

Cited by 16 publications

References 64 publications

Speech Recognition and Listening Effort of Meaningful Sentences Using Synthetic Speech

Speech Recognition and Listening Effort of Meaningful Sentences Using Synthetic Speech

Test–Retest Reliability and the Role of Task Instructions when Measuring Listening Effort Using a Verbal Response Time Paradigm

Auditory, Lexical, and Multitasking Demands Interactively Impact Listening Effort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About